Somalia isn't anarchy.
even the link you provide begins with:
Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development?
yet you still would argue to the contrary - that lawless warlords-dominated failed state isn't anarchy?
even the link you provide begins with:
Could anarchy be good for Somalia’s development?
yet you still would argue to the contrary - that lawless warlords-dominated failed state isn't anarchy?
You also seem unaware of Somaliland (one of the countries Somalia split into), which is closer to a republic (not a fully representative one) than a "warlord dominated" state. The Mujahadeen region (before they were conquered) was also rather far from a warlord dominated state (they were an Islamist theocracy).
Now as far as I know there's absolutely no state-wide rule of law in Somalia - Somaliland might have something, some parts practice Sharia to some extent, but most of the country is ruled by arbitrary enforcement of will of whatever warlord happens to control that part of the country at any point.
oh BTW, actually I found out about Somaliland just recently, in January I think, but thanks for reminding me anyway.
That said, you can have whatever opinion you want, but when your opinion goes against hundreds of years of political thought and literature, people will be slightly confused.
isn't this exactly what I said, or are you not able to distinguish between "lack of state" and "absence of state-wide law"?
Well, first of all I didn't place statelessness as the primary condition. By "state-wide" I meant "country-wide" or "land-wide", not "government-wide".
And secondly, I don't know of any other examples, but in my own country's history we had an anarchist society which had clearly defined hierarchy (that doesn't mean that people couldn't move between different levels of that hierarchy): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory_(Ukraine)
true, it wasn't probably a true anarchist society, but it is as close as it gets, again as I said, don't know any better.
I apologize for misrepresenting your position, then. I still don't fully understand, but this is getting way offtopic anyway.
> it is as close as it gets,
I'm not ultra-familliar with that particular example, but there is a big list here (It's one of them): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchist_communitie...
If you draw your border around North America you find anarchy (the law varies as you move from Mexico to the US). Even within the US, laws vary widely. But if you draw the border around Somaliland, you don't get anarchy (Somaliland has more or less consistent laws).
I'm also not sure why you don't consider a warlord to be the government. In what way does a warlord differ from a government?
yes, if you draw the borders arbitrarily. But it wasn't me who drew Somalia on the World Map.
In what way does a warlord differ from a government?
in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.
'Government' does not imply any particular form, nor does it imply consent or participation of the governed; the warlord model has had a pretty good run throughout history.
And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?
I didn't claim it implies consent, but there is a pretty clear distinction between warlord or feudal lord and "the government", at least to me.
Genghis Khan was pretty powerful warlord, controlling much of Eurasia at one point, but he didn't have the government and he wasn't governing.
There's something else that you need to have in order to be considered The Government than just the ability to kill many and collect tax from many. But I'm too tired to elaborate any further right now. This thread is getting too long anyway.
And yeah, none of us drew the border, but neither did the folks who live there...so there figuring it out now. Better late than never, right?
actually it was largely us, the so-called "Western Civilization" that drew Somalia borders as they are recognized today. My point was that we already agree where that border is supposed to be (and nobody seriously recognizes Somaliland).
Depending on which world map you select, you'll find a single border which encompasses the UK, US, and India. Would you then declare that the British Empire now lives in anarchy?
If you go by official Chinese maps, China is also in a state of anarchy - the laws of China don't apply in Taiwan.
in what way feudal lord differs from a government? well, for one he's more likely to be enforcing his will, than any widely recognized laws.
This criticism applies to most dictatorships. Do dictatorships not qualify as governments?
AFAIR British Empire long ceased to exist. But when it existed it had quite unified law. That's why you have English law in the USA and that's what Law of India is largely based on too.
World map that shows PRC and Republic of China (and Hong Kong for that matter) as a single entity is simply wrong.
But of course, if world maps can be wrong, why are you appealing to their authority two posts up?
indeed, Somalia the political entity ceased to exist. That's why Somalia the geographical entity is in anarchy. Which nobody besides you is disputing. But fine, let's finish this pointless thread, we're not getting anywhere :)